Albert Cipriani

Dear DeadLogic,
You don't need my help. You're doing a great job on Darth-vaderon. Good to see another theist in our midst which bears no resemblance to "Gorillas in the Mist."

Dear Datheron,
Your argument is reminiscent of Henry Ford’s aphorism: "The customer can have any color car they want, so long as it’s black!" What you're saying is that God can be God so long as He bows down to Logic. This is semantically disingenuous. As Ford equivocated "color" with "black," you’ve equivocated "God" with "logic." Logic is a false god with which you attempt to box in the real God.

You argue:


Not only does your argument violate the first commandment about having false gods before Him, your argument loses sight of the Catholic de fide dogma that God is absolutely simple.

The rational basis for God's simplicity is derived from the necessity of a non-simple, that is, composed thing, requiring time to become composed and depending upon its composing parts once composed. Also, the constituent parts of a composed god would necessarily be in potency to the whole; and God, by definition, cannot have any potential without it violating His perfection. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Datheron

Deadlogic,

Once again, I'm not so certain whether one is able to dismiss the laws of physics so easily. For example, can you imagine a universe with two temporal dimensions, as opposed to our single dimension which only heads in one direction? Stephen Hawking, in his famous book A Brief History of Time, conjures that if time was to run backwards, entropy would decrease, and we would not survive. While we can say this in abstract terms, I'm not too sure that I can fully imagine a reversed temporal dimension; it's out of reach, much like a 4D plane.

Of whose reality?

I'm trying to say that any reasoning that we may place on illogical entities obviously do not apply.

Quite correct - we cannot offer any description, other than the fact that it may exist, as existence is independent of logic. Indeed, that's all I'm trying to claim: there exists some entity, some universe, that logic does not hold.

Then what may it be? Once again, we hit upon this barrier of abstraction that we must use to explain logic, yet defining it as "just is" is not sufficient when I'm arguing that it really isn't "just is".

Not "do not yet understand", but cannot understand because of their exclusive nature. Here, you repeatedly show that we cannot make sense of nonlogical entities; I agree heartily, but is our incomprehension what validates existence?

I'm not using the argument to destroy a first cause; I'm using it to advance thought in having a first cause and the repurcussions from making these assumptions.

Then I can make the same arguments of a universe that came from a sentient being.

No - what is nonlogical is incomprehensible.

Our argument now lies with the debate of whether logic is necessary for existence. I place logic on the same level as physics and time; if we are to discuss anything in these fields that deviate from what we are used to in this universe, then we must use abstract terms. And while it is true that logic is more "basic" than physics, I do not see how it is different; my examples try to illustrate how it is merely analogous to our understanding of space and time.

Datheron

Albert Cipriani,

Hey, good to see you back too. The only downside is, of course, having to suffer through a set of rather horrible puns.

Not quite - I'm saying that God is bowing down to logic, as most religions would have us believe. If he does not, then perhaps he is deserving of such a title, but as that he is, I argue that he is not deserving.

But remember - this is an argument based on the first cause, and the first cause is hardly exclusive to traditional Catholics. I am under no obligation to follow any specific religious dogma.

Hence we fall into the game of brute-force definitions; as properties a and b are contradictory, and we have already a priori assumed that x holding a + b exists, therefore we must circumvent this little romp by definition. Do you see the circular argument?

Also, the idea of time is, of course, non-existent for God. I'm always surprised at how many times theists slip back to our universe, with our familiar surroundings of 3 spacial and 1 temporal dimensions, when arguing about entities which are supposed to be beyond such restrants. It only proves my point that we really do not understand anything beyond what we reside in.

bgponder

Haloo, Bro. Albert!! Welcome back, I trust that existent things are better? In the sense that you have communicated to me heretofore, I have been praying for you.

I have been studying Hume with a friend, so I'd like to take a crack at this. Deadlogic--

A couple whimsical things, before Hume:
What is logical about the existence of egg-laying mammals, or that various life-forms should exist, let alone prosper, in conditions like those of the sea-worms that live on the side of those deep-ocean gas jets?

Logical statements are relations of ideas, which, though we may apply them in understanding questions of existence, it is not that we can logically demonstrate anything's existence, because questions of matters of fact/existence are merely true or false, not contradictory.
A good proof relating to this by Ender, for those interested, is <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000123&p=2" target="_blank">here</a>.
Thus if we cannot apply logic to determine the truth or falsity of a matter of fact, it is simply meaningless to us, and statements about its exitstence mere speculation. As to first causes, whether there existed a state prior to the existence of the universe, or whether that state relates to God is unobservable and therefore unverifiable as a fact of existence.

All comment welcomed, I am just trying to learn.

Peace and cornbread, Barry

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: bgponder ]</p>

DeadLogic

Datheron,


<strong> All I'm saying is that I can think of a universe where the laws are different - where there is no gravity, or where objects of differing mass fall at different rates, to offer a couple examples (such ideas per se do not lead to a contradiction, and we can actually think of such a universe).


<strong> There is no answer to this question, because the question is absurd. We've already discussed the definition of "reality."


<strong> Your view boils down to this: "To hell with logic, because there is an aspect of reality to which logic is not applicable." (Of course, making such a claim to truth assumes the universality of logic, which makes your view self-defeating - but we've been down this road already.)


<strong> The "laws of logic" are descriptions of how reality is. You have absolutely no argument that logic isn't "just is," and even if you did, your argument would be based on the assumption of the universality of logic.


<strong> Again, you're confusing logic with epistemology. The two disciplines are related, but not synonymous.


<strong> And one of the repurcussions (more accurately, *implications*) of the assumption of a first cause is, as you said to Albert, "God is bowing down to logic, as most religions would have us believe. If he does not, then perhaps he is deserving of such a title, but as that he is, I argue that he is not deserving."

Let's assume for a moment that there is a God: He's the self-existent creator, the most powerful, most intelligent, wisest being who is. You're saying that this being does not deserve the title of "God" simply because the laws of logic apply to him as much as any other entity? You've created an arbitrary (and absurd) definition of "God" - a definition which would serve you better if you abandoned it. But this is a digression from our topic.


<strong> I don't know what you're saying here.

I fear this discussion is going to start going in circles, and I have no desire to repeat myself ad nauseum. The assumption of the universality of logic is inescapable, and I think I've made a decent case to support that claim.

I'm not ready to jettison logic, and no argument can be made in support of the antithesis of univerally applicable laws of logic. (even referring to analogies is a form of argumentation).

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: DeadLogic ]</p>

DeadLogic

bgponder,


<strong> "Weird" is not the same as "illogical."

The existence of the platypus defies no principles of logic.

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: DeadLogic ]</p>

Draygomb

Everything that exists can logically exist.
Everything that can't logically exist doesn't exist.
There may be some things that can logically exist but don't exist.


God is logically impossible and therefore can't exist.

WJ

Dath said,

"Also, you might want to change your saying to "truth is subjective",...

1. You may also want to advise the dead guy, SK, of that gramatical error. In fact, apriori existence would be: here now a brown table v. here is a brown table!

"...you make the point that my consciousness is required for existence - why? That is a requirement and the definition for sentiency, not necessarily existence."

2. Mmmm, does that mean you can logicize without the use of consciousness?

3. I would say it is clearly you, who is grasping at straws, because you are not able to articulate your own existence let alone the concept of God's! Your logic won't help you.

Walrus
------------
P(a) denies predication of existence. Have you had your dose of denial today?

WJ

Barry,

To answer your question; the phenomenon of [human] conscious existence.

Walrus
-----------
FL cannot handle issues of Being.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Draygomb,
Aside from the fact that your attempt at syllogism is illogical, it is also metaphysically flawed. You speak of things that can and cannot "logically exist." But nothing logically exists.

Things can only exist or not exist. We, on the other hand, can act logically or illogically in our relationship to what exists. Ergo, the phrase "logically (an action) exist (a state of being)" does violence to rational brains.

"Logical existence" is "dry water," a synesthesia, a mixing up of two unrelated and un-relate-able concepts. You might as well claim that a hoe grew the garden. A hoe is but a lifeless tool that helps living gardens grow. So too, logic is a non-existent tool, a means, a way of acting, that helps us divine what does and does not exist.

Whatever exists, exists whether or not it is apprehended logically. So you've got it backwards when you assert that

Rather, what exists dictates logic. So if God exists, it's logical that He exists. If God does not exist, it's logical that He does not exist.

You've got the tail wagging the dog when in truth, the dog (God spelled backwards) of existence predicates the wagging tail of logic. Or to update the trope, contrails do not create highflying airplanes, but rather, highflying airplanes create contrails. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic